Nonbelievers and Buddhism

[Dancing David]

I guess the dilemma for Buddhists who wish to treat it as a philosophy is how to treat the canon as provisionally true only, following its teachings only as recommendations, and only so long as they 'make sense'; and never religiously, never just because the Buddha is supposed to have said so. The odd zen advice, "if you meet the buddha on the road, kill him", may have been inspired by this dilemma, as a warning not to idolize the Buddha, but to ultimately follow your own path. If so, then it must be unique among religious sayings, as an admonition to abandon religion for philosophy... including Buddhism, paradoxically (but hey, it's zen! -- what else would we expect?)

That is also what the AHB taught as well, "Be ye lamps unto yourselves."

 

[Trent Wray]

Funny that you mention that. If anyone asks me my religion, I tell them it is "Jadey", but they can't read about it, because I haven't written it down.

The nice thing about it is, it is mine. If someone asks me how I feel about something, I can answer honestly without having to refer to a book for an answer. And I can be honest and accept that I may be wrong.

Perfect.

 

[blobru]

I agree 100%. Really good points .

That is also what the AHB taught as well, "Be ye lamps unto yourselves."

The zen saying you quoted is, I think, the right answer to that dilemma. If you read and take seriously the Buddhist sutras, you'll see that the Buddha repeatedly said that you shouldn't take his word on faith, that one should test everything for themselves.

The story goes that on his deathbed, one of Buddha's followers was weeping and wailing about how he was the light for them, and without him they would be lost. Buddha replied: "Be a light unto yourself, betake yourselves to no external refuge. Hold fast to the Truth. Look not for refuge to anyone but yourselves."

It isn't easy for anyone to follow this advice, and I've definitely known Buddhists who slipped into religiousness. But there is at least an injunction not to do so.

It's one of the things I kind of admire about certain branches of Buddhism (and Judaism, for that matter): the attempt, at least, to treat their religion skeptically. No idea how it works in practice, but it's cool that they seem to condone some individuality and doubt. Not too sure the Buddha would condone this, however (though my version of SGtB might, and that's all that matters... I hope):

[tune of "Camptown Races"]

Calm down Buddhists, sing this song
Buddha, Buddha
Pali Canon's nine miles long
What the Buddha say
Gonna meditate
Get my head on straight
Bet my karma on the Noble Truths
Some bodhi bet on the Way

Who's that under the bodhi tree?
Buddha, Buddha
Holy sit! What does he see?
What the Buddha say
Some say other lives
Some say brother, knives
Whet my karma on the Noble Truths
Some bodhi wet on the Way

This desire's an awful itch
Buddha, Buddha
Life's a pimp and we're its bitch
What the Buddha say
Learn to live with that
Feel like an arhat
Set my dharma on the no bull truths
Some bodhi et on the weigh

Met the awakened on the side of the road
Buddha, Buddha
Blew his head off *(some schools chant: "Freed him from samsara...") with a buckshot load
What the Buddha say *(some schools chant: "Buddha, make my day")
Didn't suffer much
Though I miss my crutch
I'll bet my future on my own damn truths
Somebody bet on the gray

 

[Dancing David]

That is much better than the word we made up to camptown races
"It put the lotion on its skin do dah do dah, or it gets the hose again, all the live liong day."

 

[MikeSun5]

What then do you think "consciousness" means

Why are you not reading the links I'm giving? They were for your benefit. I already knew the definition.

and what do you think quantum physics means by "non-locality in time and space"

Obviously not what you think. Nonlocality deals with PARTICLES. Not THOUGHTS. You are so very badly confused.

and why do you think these have nothing at all to do with Buddhism?

Because they absolutely - without a doubt - DO NOT. Re-read posts #253 and #256.

Pay close attention to this:

Welcome to the JREF:
1. You can't prove a negative.
2. The burden is on you to defend and prove your ideas, also known as the burden of proof.

Since YOU contend it has meaning, that is up to you to explain it.

NordaVinci - since it was YOU that claimed Buddhism and quantum physics were related, it's up to you to explain how. So far, your explanations have failed because you are misunderstanding and misrepresenting the words you are using to explain yourself. Unfortunately, in order to come to the conclusions you have come to, you are FORCED to misrepresent and invent definitions for words. That's how pseudoscience works.

I've said why I think they do, but you have not answered why you think they don't.....thus my suspicion that you are definitely avoiding....and thus seem to be admitting the fact that I have raised some very good points,....making it appear that I seem to know what I'm talking about.

If you read my posts, I explain quite clearly why your statements are either nonsensical or just plain wrong. You are intentionally ignoring that, just like you're intentionally ignoring the fact that particles are not thoughts, and vice versa. Coincidence? I think not. Because you NEED to ignore stuff like that for your theories to work. Ignoring facts is essential to what you're doing.

Here is an article that explains your confusion in a bit more detail, in case I've left you with some questions. Please read it. It will help.

 

[NordaVinci]

Okay, okay, everybody..this is for real:

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/news/quantumdoughnuts

No one has to try and prove that this is not Buddhism, but Buddhism does claim that there is a Principle of the Universe and that Buddha made his personality one with that Principle....let's for a moment watch this nicely made video about doughnuts discovered "by accident"....and consider the possibility that Physics has something to do with Buddha's personality (Buddha Nature/Original Mind)...and The Principle of the Universe.

 

[MikeSun5]

let's for a moment ... consider the possibility that Physics has something to do with Buddha's personality (Buddha Nature/Original Mind)...and The Principle of the Universe.

No.
...let's not... what you've written doesn't even make any sense. I mean, "has something to do with...?" Could that have been any more vague?

The link is so out of place here, I can't even tell you. Seriously. Stop it.

If you want the subject to be demolished thoroughly, then please start a new thread. Any posts about physics in this thread are so ridiculously off topic, it makes my head spin. The only time physics should be discussed here is when you have REAL evidence (not yours or Deepak Chopra's imagination) to disprove the following sentence:

Buddhism has NOTHING to do with quantum physics.

 

[NordaVinci]

No.
...let's not... what you've written doesn't even make any sense. I mean, "has something to do with...?" Could that have been any more vague?

The link is so out of place here, I can't even tell you. Seriously. Stop it.

If you want the subject to be demolished thoroughly, then please start a new thread. Any posts about physics in this thread are so ridiculously off topic, it makes my head spin. The only time physics should be discussed here is when you have REAL evidence (not yours or Deepak Chopra's imagination) to disprove the following sentence:

Buddhism has NOTHING to do with quantum physics.

Just your saying so doesn't make it true. That's your opinion. Whole books have been written on Measurement by a conscious observer in quantum physics. Each one of those authors, probably is more qualified than you to discuss the subject. It seems that you refuse to consider it, because it threatens your concept of what's woo and what's not.

Buddhism definitely weighs in on the matter.

 

[Complexity]

Just your saying so doesn't make it true. That's your opinion. Whole books have been written on Measurement by a conscious observer in quantum physics. Each one of those authors, probably is more qualified than you to discuss the subject. It seems that you refuse to consider it, because it threatens your concept of what's woo and what's not.

Buddhism definitely weighs in on the matter.

Just your saying so doesn't make it true.

 

[Dancing David]

Okay, okay, everybody..this is for real:

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/news/quantumdoughnuts

No one has to try and prove that this is not Buddhism, but Buddhism does claim that there is a Principle of the Universe and that Buddha made his personality one with that Principle....let's for a moment watch this nicely made video about doughnuts discovered "by accident"....and consider the possibility that Physics has something to do with Buddha's personality (Buddha Nature/Original Mind)...and The Principle of the Universe.

Welcome to the JREF, you beleive that there is 'possibility', then it is up to you to understand your own thoughts, deliniate them and express them.

And for clarity it probably does not help to refer to "Buddhism" as some monlithic event that is homogenous, because in fact it is not so to take your statement and neutralize it.

"No one has to try and prove that this is not Buddhism, but some parts of Buddhism does claim that there is a Principle of the Universe and that according to them theBuddha made his personality one with that Principle....let's for a moment watch this nicely made video about doughnuts discovered "by accident"....and consider the possibility that Physics in some yet to be explained fashion has something to do with Buddha's personality without explaining how that works (Buddha Nature/Original Mind)...and The Principle of the Universe."

 

[Dancing David]

Just your saying so doesn't make it true.

Irony.

That's your opinion. Whole books have been written on Measurement by a conscious observer in quantum physics.

Except you haven't quoted one yet, now have you? So a discussion of the basis of your alleged assertion is lacking.

Each one of those authors, probably is more qualified than you to discuss the subject.

You present the book and we can talk about it, most of those claims are not made by people who study QM or physics.
And that is also called an appeal to authority.

It seems that you refuse to consider it,

Lets see shall we, this is a sceptic forum and someone does not take your poorly expressed and presented ideas at face value, is that some big suprize?

because it threatens your concept of what's woo and what's not.

That is called an appeal to emotion.

Buddhism definitely weighs in on the matter.

So far you haven't supported the idea that QM supports your assertions and speculation, again the burden of proof is on you.

Just so you know this is standard JREF, it happens to all of us all the time.

 

[dafydd]

Just your saying so doesn't make it true. That's your opinion. Whole books have been written on Measurement by a conscious observer in quantum physics. Each one of those authors, probably is more qualified than you to discuss the subject. It seems that you refuse to consider it, because it threatens your concept of what's woo and what's not.

Buddhism definitely weighs in on the matter.

No it doesn't.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Glossing over Norda, I read an article that reminded me of this thread.

The Buddha wasn't a Buddhist

 

[Dancing David]

NordaVinci:

I see no relationship between this and buddhism:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090309105026.htm

However, remarkably the Warwick led research team have found that if a combination of magnetic and electric fields is applied to these nano-rings, they can actually then simply tune the electric field to freeze an exciton in place or let it collapse and re-emit a photon.

While other researchers have used varying exotic states of matter to dramatically slow the progress of light, this is the first time a technique has been devised to completely freeze and release individual photons at will.

Note please note that this is PR interpretation and it is wrong, they do NOT freeze photons, they hold an electron in a particular shell state and then release it to the lower state, that is not freezing a photon.

 

[MikeSun5]

Just your saying so doesn't make it true. That's your opinion.

Wrong. I have provided links. You have not. So far, I have facts. I have real, accepted definitions.

You have opinions, speculation, fallacies, and one helluva imagination.

Why are you ignoring my links? I read all of yours (like an idiot).

Buddhism definitely weighs in on the matter.

Prove it.

 

[MikeSun5]

More links? Okay sure, why not? Here's a televised debate between rationality and insanity science and New Age hooey.

And here's a quote from Michael Shermer (another person way more qualified than me, NordaVinci):

"He uses a lot of jargon and terms from science but in a very unscientific, very unclear, undefined way and mixes it up with religion and spirituality such that to an outsider it sounds good."

He's talking about Chopra, of course. NordaVinci is a perfect example of the "outsider" in question.

And since NordaVinci will probably ignore these links too, I'll post another. What we have here is yet ANOTHER article/discussion -- this time on our very own JREF!!

It's clear, NordaVinci, that your legion of "qualified authors" do not understand physics at all, but they've obviously got making money off people like you down to a science. Pun intended.

 

[Dancing David]

Unscientific sample:
http://www.integralscience.org/ConsciousQM.html
Thomas J. McFarlane, Bs in physics, not qualified

http://www.generativescience.org/ps-papers/qmc1h.html
Ian J. Thompson, Theoretical Nuclear Physicist possibly qualified when it comes to QM, way wrong about psychology


ooops he is crazy, in terms of psychology, he assumes his consclusion

I am going to assume, in a non-reductionist way, as Eccles and others do, that the mind is (in some way) distinct from the brain.

Thanks goods ness for Stnger:

NordaVinci, try this out:
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Quantum/QuantumConsciousness.pdf

Now, after a series of precise experiments, the issue
has been decided: The Copenhagen interpretation quantum mechanics has been
convincingly confirmed, while the most important class of hidden variables is ruled
out.7
David Bohm, who died in October, 1992, had been the foremost proponent of
a new holistic paradigm to take the place of reductionist quantum physics.8 The
failure of his related hidden variable theory did not cause the proponents of the new
continuity to loose faith. Rather they have turned the experimental confirmation of
conventional quantum mechanics on its head by arguing that a basis has been found
for the superluminal signals needed in a holistic universe.

7 is reference to
Alain Aspect, Phillipe Grangier, and Roger Gerard, 1982. “Experimental Realization of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Gedankenexperiment: A New Violation of Bell’s Inequalities.” Physical Review Letters 49, p. 91;
“Experimental Tests of Bell’s Inequalities Using Time-Varying Analyzers. “ Ibid, p. 1804.

 

[ugot2bekidding]

Glossing over Norda, I read an article that reminded me of this thread.

The Buddha wasn't a Buddhist

Seconded. I think if we're to address the question in the OP, we have to focus on the ideas and intent of the originator, and not concern ourselves with the fluff added through the centuries by the masses (who, apparently, can't grasp a 'science of the mind' unless it's turned into a woo religion).

 

[CKava]

It's quite depressing that since the woo made its impromptu appearance thanks to NordaVinci the interesting discussion about Buddhism and skepticism has been eclipsed by people having to address all the pseudoscience. Kind of illustrates the unfortunate impact of woo...

Seconded. I think if we're to address the question in the OP, we have to focus on the ideas and intent of the originator, and not concern ourselves with the fluff added through the centuries by the masses (who, apparently, can't grasp a 'science of the mind' unless it's turned into a woo religion).

And by doing so we would be falling into the trap discussed earlier in the thread of assuming that 'original' Buddhism was the kind of Buddhism that secular, scientifically literate people find appealing today. The available evidence strongly suggests this is not the case. Buddhism can be interpreted as a secular philosophy about improving awareness but that does not mean that's what the founder of Buddhism or the early communities were all about.

 

[MikeSun5]

It's quite depressing that since the woo made its impromptu appearance thanks to NordaVinci the interesting discussion about Buddhism and skepticism has been eclipsed by people having to address all the pseudoscience. Kind of illustrates the unfortunate impact of woo...

And by doing so we would be falling into the trap discussed earlier in the thread of assuming that 'original' Buddhism was the kind of Buddhism that secular, scientifically literate people find appealing today. The available evidence strongly suggests this is not the case. Buddhism can be interpreted as a secular philosophy about improving awareness but that does not mean that's what the founder of Buddhism or the early communities were all about.

An excellent segue from a hideous derail back to the topic. Thank you.

I agree about the evidence... It doesn't really appear that the early (or even modern traditional) Buddhists considered it merely a philosophy and way of life, but also their religion. Most early cultures were centered around religion anyway, and I'm sure Siddhartha Guantanamo (sp?) was probably raised practicing some form of Hindu. I wonder if he referred to himself as Hindu/Buddhist?